Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

The Minister has given good leadership and his personal tragedy has touched us all. He is an excellent Minister and has been anxious to develop relationships with the Oireachtas, as am I. It is a concern that we share.

Senator Quinn always makes a sparkling contribution. He discussed the impact of the growth in private debt on the current crisis and, of course, is correct. There has not been enough discussion of that aspect. He correctly made the point that it was not an issue of public or state debt that had brought Lehman Brothers down but private greed.

He mentioned the comments of the Polish Prime Minister and the Italian Foreign Minister who expressed concerns about what had happened in Deauville and described it as being unacceptable to other big players. It is not acceptable to any player, big, small or medium in size. The European Union is a community of member states and we are all equal. I recall this issue coming to the fore during a discussion at the European Convention when I had to remind the president of the convention that all member states were equal under the Treaty of Rome, regardless of whether they were big or small. Senator Quinn is right in pointing out that there are 27 member states, not just two. That is not to say we disregard any member state and if Chancellor Merkel has a particular concern about the constitutional position or what the constitutional court might find, we would be foolhardy to ignore her concerns. We must listen to them with respect and make certain we do not paint her as the villain of the piece because she is not. She wants to ensure we will not have difficulties in the future.

Senator Quinn also mentioned the advent of China in terms of the Greek and Portuguese initiatives, both of which are very interesting. I am not sure what the position would be if they were to come here.

One of the high points of the debate was the Senator saying that our problem could be solved if we believed in ourselves. He is right in saying we will have the right outcome because we have strengths. He made the point that we had many strengths that we did not recognise. Other countries have demographic issues that we do not have. We have a young, vibrant and well educated population and a very flexible workforce. That is not a position in which other member states or other major developed states find themselves. Even with the downturn, there are more people at work than 20 years ago. We have a very good story to tell on our balance of payments. We also have good news on our exports. As the Senator said, we have started to reconstruct our competitiveness. Many of our fellow EU member states have real issues with their competitiveness. When I was in Denmark recently, I was shocked to discover the position in which it found itself. The biggest single impediment to our future progress as a nation is our occasional self-doubts. Samuel Johnson said: "The Irish are a fair people; they never speak well of one another." Perhaps we should.

Senator Ormonde rightly mentioned the importance attached to Ireland playing a full role in the European Union. This is not some supplicant nation but a full member of the Union. We are respected and well regarded and should never paint ourselves into a secondary position.

Senator Alex White rightly said it was only a matter of time before a permanent mechanism, a common-sense set of provisions, emerged. It will be the contents that will count. I have made the point that we expect the German Government to respect our constitutional concerns and we must return the compliment. The Senator did not question the Taoiseach's view on the wording that will be brought forward in December but was merely reflecting it. Like the Taoiseach, he makes the very valid point that we cannot be definitive until we see the final wording. Within the existing treaty structure it is possible to find words that will meet current requirements and not require a major treaty change. If we are to commit ourselves to a major treaty change it will become a problem not just for Ireland but for all 27 member states. If we were to undertake a major root and branch rewriting of any section of the Lisbon treaty, it would require a convention which would pose difficulties for each and every member state. When discussing this matter, it is important to keep to the fore the Crotty judgment which found that a referendum was not necessary when the treaty proposals "do not alter the essential scope or objectives of the Communities". It is possible to frame words in the current context without in any way altering the scope or objectives of the treaties.

The Senator asked whether we were right to commit ourselves to a figure of €6 billion. The reality is that we are spending €5 for every €3 we take in in taxes. In the next year or so we will need to borrow up to €20 billion simply to pay for services currently provided. We are all sufficiently adult to accept that this is not a realistic position to maintain. What disturbs me in a debate that is taking place outside the Houses is the suggestion that we might be as well off to let the IMF come in. A very good article in The Sunday Business Post reminded readers what had happened in Latvia when the IMF came in. The IMF forced a cut, the equivalent of 10% of GDP, and we are talking about a figure of 3.7% and saying how horrific it is. It cut almost half of the public service agencies and closed almost half of the hospitals. Thousands of public servants were let go and the unemployment level grew to in excess of 20%. Those who are enthusiasts of the IMF coming in and doing the job we, as the elected Government and elected representatives on all sides of the political divide, should do are not in touch with reality. Even Greece, following the EU bailout and with the assistance of the IMF, will face a bigger cut next year than we will. While it is not a pleasant place to be, anybody who suggests going the IMF route would somehow be an easier option is not in touch with reality.

Senator Dearey was concerned about the mechanism being portrayed as an extension of an EU democratic deficit, on which he is right. There are people who, no matter what is suggested, will portray the European Union as, in some way, posing a sinister threat to all we hold dear. In reality, as we all know, nothing could be further from the truth. Members should contemplate where we would be if it were not for the support we have received from the Union.

The Senator asked whether a referendum would be required. I have already dealt with that issue. There is more than adequate room within the treaty structures to use the more flexible mechanism to achieve the changes necessary.

The Senator asked about draft conclusions reached at Cancun, which are important. The Commission President, Mr. Barroso, recently wrote to President Van Rumpuy and the Heads of State and Government calling on them to agree a position that demonstrated global leadership on the topic. That was at the core of his letter. What happened in Copenhagen last year was nothing short of a farce. It was not that the European Union was not represented there; rather it was that we were not speaking with a single voice, which is not good. The Union has a high moral position in this, on which we need to focus. We also need to be realistic. The Union cannot carry the burden unless other developed and developing states step up to the plate.

While I do not agree with Senator Cummins's opening remarks, I have sat in the Dáil for a long time and never recall anyone arguing very strongly for reduced spending in any budget no matter what Deputy Bruton's overall conclusions were in the end. I recall a series of resolutions calling for very good things that would have required the expenditure of more money. It would be uncool of me to ask if Deputy Bruton did such sterling work, why did Fine Gael move him, but I will not go down that route because it would be unkind.

The Senator mentioned that the simple mechanism used within the treaty should be sufficient. I agree. One of the things we need to do in the European Union is to stop speaking in superlatives and start looking at how we might make incremental improvements. The idea that we should always go for the big bang, the big explosion and the grand gesture is, frankly, foolish because one never achieves them. There is a pilgrimage in a small town in Luxembourg, Echternach, in which the pilgrims march two steps forward and one step back. That is how the European Union reaches its objectives. It takes small steps forward and another step back. However, it happens by being radical in small ways rather than opting for the grand show.

I agree with the point the Senator made about beef and the Doha round of negotiations. I had the pleasure of making the point personally to a very irate Minister for Foreign Affairs from one of the larger countries in South America who accused me, and I would be delighted to take the blame, of being solely responsible for stopping Brazilian beef being imported into this country. My response at the time was the same as the Senator's, that as soon as the beef produced by Brazil has full traceability and meets all the requirements of both animal and human health, there will be no problem. There is no way we should allow a good and clean food industry to be spancelled with unfair competition.

Deputy Barrett and I have had long and pleasant discussions about ratings agencies. It is great to have someone other than ourselves to criticise. The Senator is quite correct that there is something perverse about ratings agencies which were giving junk bonds AAA ratings on the eve of the collapse of Lehman Brothers calling the shots for sovereign debt. It is important the European Union produces a response to that because it is abnormal. We know that ratings agencies, some of which are regularly quoted in our media, faced criminal charges because they were on both sides of cases, and there are very serious cases coming down the line relating to them. The Commission is working on proposals regarding ratings agencies. There is a necessity for an objective rating that is beyond question.

Senator Mooney was concerned about the background noises from the Deauville summit. He is correct that the removal of voting rights is not a particularly communautaire suggestion. It is being kicked into the long grass. After he does all the other things he must do, President Van Rompuy must also examine this proposition. I would not hold my breath waiting for anything to come forward on it. The Senator is correct that the High Representative has been tasked with examining the relationship between NATO and the European Union. That does not in any way undermine or attack Ireland's neutrality. Burma was not on the agenda although I share the Senator's view on what has happened there. It is worth recalling that the Seanad was the first House of any parliamentary assembly to pass a resolution on the continuing undemocratic incarceration of Aung San Suu Kyi. A resolution was passed in this Chamber before the matter became an issue in other parliaments.

I agree about the need to keep Ireland engaged in the summits with third countries. Even though we are not part of the G20, it is important we pay attention to it. I wish to caution against a danger on our part. I had a word with a member of Senator Cummins's party who was talking about Ministers swanning around Europe. It is terribly important we continue to engage. The fact that we happen to face difficulties is not an excuse for disengaging. If there was ever a time when Ireland's interest required us to be fully engaged, this is it. I was also talking to a former leader of the Fine Gael Party, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, a man for whom I have huge personal respect. He made this very point, that this is a time when we should not pull into our shells. We should reach out and sell the Irish story. Yes, there have been issues for which we can all take some blame, but we also have a good story to tell.

I do not agree that there was anything sinister about the visit of Commissioner Olli Rehn. I am not sure Senator Twomey wished to say that but the words he used appeared to suggest it. Commissioner Olli Rehn was here for the good and proper reason, that the President of the European Commission has indicated that he wants the Commissioners to be out and about in member states. There was a democratic deficit in Europe and Members will recall that the Irish Presidency of the EU emphasised the need for communicating in Europe. One of the ways to do that is to get men and women out of the Berlaymont and on the ground. It was very beneficial that Commissioner Rehn met the Opposition and the social partners. It helps to contextualise the decisions we must make.

I am not clear about the point Senator Twomey was making but I am sure he was not dismissing the benefits of having a Commissioner here. Perhaps he was highlighting the fact that there is a danger that some people in Ireland will misuse such visits. That is a reality. The old Irish expression, ní neart go chur le chéile, applies. If we can harness the pro-Irish sentiment and respect for this nation that exists within the Commission, I believe we will do well from it. No country in Europe is as over-represented at senior positions within the bureaucracy of the Commission, so there is a good understanding of Ireland's position. It is good that the Commissioners visit this country, and a series of Commissioners is due to visit soon. There is nothing either nefarious or sinister in that, and I am sure Senator Twomey did not wish to suggest it. It is very positive and I am sure the main Opposition party also regards it as positive.